Since I was not satisfied with the samples that had been posted (I suspect they are massively over sharpened jpegs), I decided to run my own comparison of the RX1 and RX1R using ISO 100 raw files from Imaging Resource. Processing was done using Photo Ninja. No adjustments were made except the following: In the first screen shot, default sharpening by deconvolution was applied to the RX1 sample only. In the second screen shot, default sharpening was applied to the RX1R sample and sharpening was boosted very modestly to the RX1 sample in an effort to match the two. Magnification is 150%. RX1 is on the left and RX1R on the right. View at full size.

I conclude from this that with proper deconvolution in the raw stage, images from the RX1 can show as much sharpness and detail as those from the RX1R.

Rob

Rob, those are great results and they are just supporting what removal of AA does => gives you detail you can only get back by sharpening.

In other words, you're creating them artificially for RX1 sample, so it's false detail where in the sample from RX1R it's a real detail.

Beautiful example of this are results from Foveon sensors (no AA), I haven't had a need to use sharpening at all on the photos from my DP2M.

And when it comes to moire (yes, it does exist but you can avoid it) => I'd rather remove it in post processing than create artificial details from photograph which doesn't have them.

False detail? That reminds of the joke told by absurdist comedian Steven Wright: Someone broke into his apartment, stole all the furniture and replaced the pieces with exact replicas. The absurdity is that if the replicas are exact, it would be impossible to distinguish them from the originals. And so it is with my deconvoluted RX1 samples. The level of detail is identical to the RX1R samples, so labeling it "false detail" is absurd.

I think that your fundamental error is in not understanding deconvolution, which is completely different from sharpening by USM. Deconvolution is the application of a mathematical algorithm that reverses image blurring. It restores lost detail and increases sharpness without the use of masking techniques. I think that my examples speak for themselves, and I stand by my original conclusion: The RX1 can produce images that, with deconvolution sharpening in the raw stage, are as sharp and detailed as those from the RX1R and with a lower risk of exhibiting moire. If people want to get the R version, that is fine with me, but they should know the facts.

Rob

I'm glad you did the comparisons and the results look good. But the question I have is if you use deconvolution, to get it just right you would need an algorithm specific to the model (actually the AA filter) you are working with. Every AA filter is slightly different so you would need the right algorithm to properly reverse engineer the blur, right?. Are we stuck with "one algorithm fits all sizes" for now? I am a lightroom 5 user btw.